6/24/2011

Assume for the sake of argument that you could talk to JohnReid9 . . . and he told you that (with the obvious exception of providing fake IDs) he has been honest throughout.

Humor me.

What questions would you ask him to ascertain whether he is telling the truth?

You would obviously ask him to explain the fake IDs. And the fake pictures. And if he would video chat with him. And if he is Patriot. And if he is whoever Lee Stranahan thinks he is. And probably a bunch of other things I already thought of.

But also, probably, a bunch of things I haven’t thought of.

I have asked him some questions. I hope to get a chance to ask more. (I may hold, but offer no opinion regarding, JohnReid9 or the truth of any claim he makes.)

So consider this an open-source interview.

What would you ask JohnReid9?

UPDATE: I am chatting with JohnReid9 right now. Any questions you have? He is willing to answer.

[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here. Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]

So for several months I have been talking about how I believed that the war in Libya is unlawful and indeed represents a willful disregard of the Constitution by President Obama. I made it clear that I felt that intervening in Libya was a good idea (if only they were doing it more competently), if only to remove the butcher of Pan Am 103 from power and maybe usher him into the next world, too. But at the same time, the Constitution stated that the President can’t just start a war on his own, and the President understood that. And I am not a fair-weather Constitutionalist.

And for that I, and everyone who thinks the same way, are being called unpatriotic and unprincipled. Yes, really. First, you get Hillary Clinton:

But the bottom line is, whose side are you on? Are you on Qadhafi’s side or are you on the side of the aspirations of the Libyan people and the international coalition that has been created to support them?

Hey, remember when dissent was patriotic? We knew that wouldn’t last. But really, let’s see here, it is a politician behaving in a shameful and hypocritical manner. Yeah, it’s wrong and outrageous, but it’s kind of the nature of the beast.

On the other hand, I find this next example more galling, because it purports to come from a news article, which is not supposed to engage in commentary In USA Today, David Jackson reports on a Gallup Poll that shows that a plurality of Americans are opposed to the Libyan war, with 46% disapproving and 39% approving. Then when trying to explain what drives this opposition—whether it’s about the wisdom of the war itself, or the constitutional issue–he writes:

Most of the critics oppose the conflict on principle, as opposed to the recent political dispute over whether President Obama should have obtained congressional authorization for U.S. participation.

(Emphasis added.) Got that? If you think it’s a bad policy, you are opposing the conflict on principle. On the other hand, if you think Barrack Obama should have taken his own advice and obtained prior approval, you are unprincipled.

In other Libya news, Congress refused to approve of the fighting, and then voted against a measure to defund it. Oy vey. Also, apparently the AFP is not buying Obama’s claims that the Libyan War does not constitute “hostilities.” Witness this bit in a story about Italy’s reticence in the matter:

Italy called for a suspension of hostilities in Libya on Wednesday in the latest sign of dissent within NATO as the civilian death toll mounts and Moamer Kadhafi shows no signs of quitting power.

(emphasis added.) Of course to be fair, I am not sure they even realized that they were verbally contradicting the president. And even if they did, well… what the hell can they call it? Hostilities seems like just about the mildest term they could have used.

So when I got a threat last night, my first impulse was to post the whole thing. I think it was 60 seconds between the time I read the email and my post. In case you missed that post, this is what I received:

You need to stop digging into Genette Cordova and Rep. AW. I cannot insure your safety if you continue.
Do not trust anyone.

Please think about your family. This story is not worth it. I can assure you that.

Please remember, your safety cannot be assured if you continue.

I am trying to help you, a lot of people are very disappointed that this story has continued.

You can continue with the story if you so desire, but your safety cannot be assured.

Thank you for your cooperation and your understanding.

Yours Truly- Alicia

It was written mostly in red font, which as you know is the preferred font of those who issue threats, because of its fear-inspiring nature.

Right about the time I hit publish, I got an e-mail from Ace asking if I had received the threat. He then followed up with other e-mails showing how he responded to Alicia, and how she escalated her rhetoric. Read the exchange at Ace’s.

So I thought: hey, if this person will talk to Ace, maybe they’ll talk to me. So I started using tactics similar to what Ace used. I figured if Ace got her talking, maybe copying his manner would work for me too.

Here is the exchange we had.

I responded:

Is this a joke?

After half an hour I prodded further:

Where did you go? Did you fall asleep? Isn’t it a little early for a drama queen to have gone to bed?

Right around midnight, I got a response:

I did not. No reason to start calling names. With that said, You decided to ignore my advice. I was trying to help you. I am no longer able to help you. Consequent thereto, you will have to deal with the consequences of your actions, whatever those consequences may entail. I hope you make the right decisions from here on out.

And yes, I am aware of the fact that you are a prosecutor in the gang task force in Santa Monica.

And no this is NOT a threat, this is just a friendly request, that you leave this story alone and not release any more PRIVATE and INTIMATE emails.
Your actions are causing some people quite a bit of disappointment and anger.

I appreciate your time and cooperation-sincerely yours, Alicia

All bold in this post is in the original. I responded, again copying Ace’s tactics:

I figured you’d back down when someone called you on it. Too late, though. Taking an obvious threat and pretending it’s not doesn’t neutralize the threat. It becomes difficult to get a job when people learn you have gone around threatening people on the Internet.

Good luck finding meaningful employment after this.

Sincerely yours,

P

I loved how they kept using the “sincerely yours” signature block. I added:

Oh: after reading your e-mail I decided to pursue the story further and publish more.

P.S. I’d also love to publish a story about your getting arrested for Internet threats. That’d be good copy.

(The link, of course, is to last night’s document dump, which includes alleged DMs from Rep. Weiner to “Nikki Reid” in which he uses the f-word (to describe how he likes to mock conservative “trolls”) and seems to joke about considering going to prom with her. Worth your time if you haven’t read it.)

They responded:

You really think so? Let’s see CA PC 422:
Any person who willfully threatens to commit a crime which will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with
the specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in writing, or
by
means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a
threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out,
which, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made,
is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as toconvey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an
immediate prospect of execution of the threat, and thereby causes
that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own
safety or for his or her immediate family’s safety, shall be punished
by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year, or by
imprisonment in the state prison.
So go ahead…..File the charging documents. Request the warrants. I’ll have to check the bail schedule. I’ll see you at the jail.
But you can’t and you won’t and no prosecutor would charge me with anything.
I am sorry, if you felt that “I” myself threatened you. I don’t threaten people.
I simply made the observation that your safety could not be assured.
And I have meaningful employment at this time. I am sort of a janitor, I help fix and clean up my clients problems.
I have relayed my disappointment to Mr. Reid (not his real name) as well. She has decided she will respect my concerns.

I appreciate your continued cooperation, Sincerely yours-Alicia

The emphasis was in that scary red font, but I don’t know how to do that. Sorry. She followed up:

I have no interest in reading your story. I am confident that LE will not arrest me. However, if they do, I will give you an exclusive interview, right before I post bail. I am confident, that will not be the case.
I have enough information, that if my client chooses to a certain unnamed adult person would be facing serious felony charges, see PC 314.
Thank you for your continued cooperation in this manner, sincerely yours-Alicia *kiss*

You will later see that she is apparently referring to some unnamed “unemployed person.” Not sure who that is. Penal Code section 314 has to do with indecent exposure, which could be a reference to Weiner, who is newly unemployed, but I don’t know. Anyway, I said:

Ever heard of an attempted 422? That’s where someone tries to threaten someone but fails.

It’s half the time, but it can still be a felony. Check section 664 along with 422.

This all assumes that we’re talking California state law. I don’t know about federal law having to do with using the Internet to threaten people. But I can learn.

I actually was inclined to laugh this off at first. Now? Not so sure. May make some phone calls tomorrow.

She responded:

I’m sorry there is no 664/422. And you’re a prosecutor really? And any attempt=the same time. So a 664/496(a) is the same sentence as a 496(a). Like I said I am just a janitor, except instead of cleaning bathrooms, floors, I clean up peoples problems. That is what I get paid to do. I do whatever is in the best interest of my clients.
You can go ahead and make some calls tomorrow, sadly you will only embarrass yourself. Especially if you try to have me charged with 664/422.

Thank you for your continued cooperation, sincerely yours-Alicia *kiss* *wink*

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. There is indeed a crime of attempted criminal threat. Those who believe different should talk to Ryan Toledo. Here is a quote from his appeal, which he lost:

Given the record before us, the only element of terrorist threat the jury might have found to be attempted but not completed was her testimony that she was not frightened by appellant’ s statements. The jury was entitled to find that a reasonable person would have been, thus Appellant was properly convicted of attempted terrorist threat.

Every person who attempts to commit any crime, but fails, or
is prevented or intercepted in its perpetration, shall be punished
where no provision is made by law for the punishment of those
attempts, as follows:
(a) If the crime attempted is punishable by imprisonment in the
state prison, the person guilty of the attempt shall be punished by
imprisonment in the state prison for one-half the term of
imprisonment prescribed upon a conviction of the offense attempted.

Every practicing criminal attorney knows this. So where did Alicia get the idea that the time is the same? Well, she talks about looking at a bail schedule. The Los Angeles Superior Court’s bail schedule (.pdf) states on page 10 that the bail for an an attempt (with noted and irrelevant exceptions) is

Same as substantive offense

As I said, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. I responded:

You didn’t actually look up section 664, did you?

As for there being no attempted 422, tell the people who have been convicted at trial.

It’s amusing enough having you explain California law to me. Now explain federal law on Internet threats. Let’s see if you do as well with that.

Then explain to me who your client is. Mr./Mrs. Not-Reid?

She responded:

No, I did not look up section 664 because I already know what it is. You’re going to start our relationship with lies? I am very disappointed in you. I know you are better than that. Nobody has ever been convicted of 664/422, and you know this. Last e-mail you tried to tell me that 664 =half the time. I see you have conceded that you were mistaken. A 664(whatever)= the same time as the attempted crime carried.
It’s not amusing that I have to explain California law to you, it’s actually pretty sad really.
I’m not an attorney, however most of my clients are attorneys. Like I said I am a janitor, I clean up people’s problems. It’s amazing how much someone will pay for their freedom.
I don’t give out the identities of my clients. Let’s just say my client is not “known” yet by anyone.
I am not a partisan, it doesn’t pay me enough.
I know you are a prosecutor. I know you consider gang members “terrorists”
I don’t blame you really.
Let me cut to the bottom line. I deliver you information that will send a certain “unemployed person” to prison.
I do not want anything in exchange.

“I’m not an attorney.” You don’t say!

Note how the “janitor” reference interfaces with the exchange Alicia had with Ace. I said:

I’ll ignore your ignorant bluster on California penal law and ask you to send whatever you want. If you have evidence that someone committed a crime, let’s see it.

This doesn’t mean you haven’t committed a crime yourself, because you have.

She responded:

Well what can I say? If you really want to bring me to justice, I encourage you to do so. Here is the best number to call: Stalking and Threat Assessment Team (STAT)
Inside line: X[redacted] or (213) 974-[redacted]. If you hurry you might be able to get me off the streets before the weekend. But the chance of the warrant going in to the system before Monday is almost none. I am confident I have not committed a crime.
I will only act in the best interest of my client. I will get in contact with telephonically and will make arrangements for you to receive the information, if that is the course of action that needs to be taken. Remember GL also had contact with me, as I advised her. She sadly chose against her best interests in going with GA. Unfortunately.
Thank you for your continued cooperation, sincerely yours, Alicia *kiss*

I’m redacting the number because I don’t want you guys calling it.

If you haven’t been following this closely: GL is Ginger Lee. GA is Gloria Allred. And Ginger Lee did receive threats.

It’s hard to feel too threatened by a chucklehead who can’t string a sentence together and derives their understanding of California penal law by reading a bail schedule. Still, I wonder . . .

Threats have been issued against Patterico and Ace – they are weird, vague, anonymous and overdramatic. (Sounds like any number of sock puppets in this story – because the puppets may have different costumes but it’s the same person running them.) I hope they contact authorities who can issue warrants.

I did an IP dump light night on Twitter of IP addresses captured from 1) PatriotUSA76 about 2 weeks ago and 2) whoever dumped screen grabs of alleged conversations between Weiner and Gennete Cordova on a number of blogs, including the comment section of my blog.

The IP dump sent a dozen or so people exploring on Twitter…

And the result seems to be that both Patriot and the ‘Seattle545’ doc dumper used an IP Proxy to conceal their identity.

1) JohnReid9 has vanished again, not even communicating with Pattercio last night. This is more highly suspicious behavior, especially given the sudden disappearance of @PatriotUSA90210.

2) Add in the threats and boy – it seems like someone is having a breakdown. And that person having a breakdown causes threats from a new character, an erased account and radio silence.

I’ll say to this to the person behind this, again – this can’t be fun. Call me back

3) While lots of folks seem to want to attack on Gennette or Jen Preston from the New York Times, which I view as a ton of misplaced focus and fury. The focus right now should be on whoever is behind Reid / Nikki / Marinara (and possibly Patriot) and Anthony Weiner. Of course Weiner is the ultimate epicenter of the story but bringing out the truth about the Puppet Master (or Puppet Mistress, which seems ever more likely) only helps root about the reality of what was happening with Weiner.

4) Gennette seems to be confirming all the docs released related to her but has warned that “John Reid” isn’t releasing everything

5) “Nikki” was giving different stories to different people along the way – and Gennette mentions in comments that Nikki told her that Nikki attended The Buckley School around the time Nikki was trying to get Weiner to take her to the prom – not Hollywood High, was Tommy Christopher was told. And the Buckley School’s prom was over. Nikki made up some excuse.

6) Another big detail about the floundering fakery of Nikki – Gennette says she mentioned that Nikki seemed to have no Twitter friends and a generic picture. Then the next day, she has the now infamous Dog Photo and Marianela appears. Shazzam!

7) Finally and crucially — everything in both doc dumps is consistent with the fact that Nikki was a sock puppet account trying clumsily to gather info on Anthony Weiner. Why? That’s not clear yet. But the meticulous cataloging of all these emails and DMs is consistent with snooping on Weiner. I honestly don’t even get why his is controversial because it’s so obvious to me.